Well it certainly brought it out in me! wait till he reads my post, 2 above this one, regarding Roubini's ideas of how income inequality harms an economy.
Who Is Screwing The Middle Class? Obama Or Republicans?
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
I don't think Roubini's thesis quite gets to the problem. He's basically saying that the problem with high inequality is sub-optimal demand (I'm thinking in per capita terms), but why should the wealthy care about that? Sure, optimal demand would in theory make them wealthier still, but the lower classes would also have risen, and that makes being rich less fun, less heroic, since so much of being (truly) wealthy is about display. This may be the main reason the wealthy so resist government spreading the poker chips around.
Considering national competitiveness, sub-optimal demand makes your economically relevant population much smaller, so you have cut a great deal of potential innovation out of your nation--in spite of your raw population numbers you are competing as a much smaller nation. A longer-term worry even for the rich, but few of us are much concerned with long term worries. So again, why should the wealthy care?
What does that leave, social discord?
Its the people's fault.
The country spent two weeks in a frenzy about 2 psi in some footballs but nobody gives a shit when Obama lies or disregards the Constitution its no big deal. That tells you everything you need to know.
Look at the state of the two parties. The democrats have Hillary Clinton who supposed to be a shoe-in for the nomination because they don't another person in their party who is even remotely qualified. The frontrunner for the republicans is a Bush, and that speaks for itself. I BLAME THE PEOPLE.
"Every country has the government it deserves"
Joseph de Maistre
The country spent two weeks in a frenzy about 2 psi in some footballs but nobody gives a shit when Obama lies or disregards the Constitution its no big deal. That tells you everything you need to know.
Look at the state of the two parties. The democrats have Hillary Clinton who supposed to be a shoe-in for the nomination because they don't another person in their party who is even remotely qualified. The frontrunner for the republicans is a Bush, and that speaks for itself. I BLAME THE PEOPLE.
"Every country has the government it deserves"
Joseph de Maistre
Yes. That's it exactly, sub optimal demand. I don't think the wealthy do care, do they? But should they? And does the reality that the wealthy really run the nation underlie your remarks? But then I'm not wealthy so I should ask the opinion of someone that is.-- well I may be wealthy according to what I read here that Obama's definition of wealthy is. I don't feel wealthy. I think Obama must be wrong.
I do know some truly wealthy folks. I should ask them to give me an opinion. Social discord, if it becomes social disobedience, is something I think Roubini sees as a risk. That seems intuitively obvious to me. How about you?
But thinking about this more, perhaps it is a long-run mistake for the wealthy not to care, and perhaps that is a big mistake they are making. If they make a big mistake, does that mean the government makes it also?.
I see exactly your point of view, and how can I disagree? Perhaps in one place only you went a bit astray. Don't you think that in reality there are a huge number of people that would be qualified and make competent presidents, but only a few who will stoop as low as you have to to be elected?
It is definitely the people. I have got to blame "we the people" for tuning in on "two PSI too low" instead of Masterpiece Theater. The advertisers know what we the people want to watch, and the commercial stations know what the advertisers want.
I hear ya, and I'm starting to come around. I never liked this "class" talk. I've always considered myself part of the business class no matter how poor I actually was. And I've never had much sympathy or empathy for politicians and their constituents who think the only path in life is a job working for someone else, and then sit on the sidelines scratching their head, wondering why the owner is rich and they are poor.
But I'm coming to realize that most are middle class, and that is who we need to help. You can't stop the rich and there is no hope for the poor. But you can help the middle class. In the past, when government acted I always judged by "Is it pro growth? Pro business?" Because I figured the middle class needed a job and better to work for a profitable company. But now I am starting to ask, "Is it pro middle class?"
Pie, we're saying more or less the same thing. I'm just saying that those well-paying middle class jobs tended to be in manufacturing. Hollow that sector out and a lot of people are left with basically nothing.
I object to your easy characterization that it is the rich and republicans who are in favor of this. Bill Clinton pushed NAFTA, which was a huge expansion of free trade and also pushed access to our market for his chinese buddies. Free trade, WTO, etc have enjoyed bipartisan support.
The CEO class definitely deserves some blame though. The auto industry was plagued by poor management for decades. The notion that CEO's are entitled to obscene amounts of money just because they run a big company is a big problem for us. We are creating our own class of oligarchs. That is a problem in itself, but I think the inequality problem is better addressed by creating the conditions that lead to good stable jobs in manufacturing, energy and construction. Unfortunately, letting in vast number sof low skilled illegal immigrants undercuts that whole effort.
I object to your easy characterization that it is the rich and republicans who are in favor of this. Bill Clinton pushed NAFTA, which was a huge expansion of free trade and also pushed access to our market for his chinese buddies. Free trade, WTO, etc have enjoyed bipartisan support.
The CEO class definitely deserves some blame though. The auto industry was plagued by poor management for decades. The notion that CEO's are entitled to obscene amounts of money just because they run a big company is a big problem for us. We are creating our own class of oligarchs. That is a problem in itself, but I think the inequality problem is better addressed by creating the conditions that lead to good stable jobs in manufacturing, energy and construction. Unfortunately, letting in vast number sof low skilled illegal immigrants undercuts that whole effort.
I don't think so.
If you want to decrease inequality, you're not going to do it by handing out welfare checks and increasing min wage laws. That's the dem prescription and it's a bad joke.
If you want to decrease inequality, how about getting the fed out of the picture and stop blowing bubbles? Like I said elsewhere, we're now a society where the way to get rich is to have a gigantic carry trade in a mkt that the fed won't let go down. Innovation and production doesn't get the top rewards anymore and the best and the brightest aren't going to waste their time on it.
I don't hear a lot about a bunch of rich hedgies in Germany like I do here. They put their energy into innovating and building quality products and that puts people to work.
Innovation and production builds wealth in a society. When you have a central bank that is more concerned about propping up mkts, all you get is a class of rich people at the top.
And you don't stop it by outlawing or regulating hedge funds. You stop it by stopping the fed from usurping power and trying to run an economy instead of just being a backstop for temporary liquidity problems.
Well stated, fhl.